The Piedmont city council approved a measure (PDF) on Monday evening to spend $678,613 to acquire and install 39 cameras at 15 locations along its city border with Oakland (which completely surrounds it). Rikki Goede, the police chief, told Ars that she expects the system to be up and running by Fall 2013.

The city of 11,000 people will now become one of a short list of cities around the United States (including Tiburon, CA, and Sugar Land, TX) to have LPRs scanning every car that drives in and out of the city, instantly checking them against a “hot list” of wanted vehicles.

LPRs can usually scan roughly 60 plates per second. Collected plate, location, time and date data is then also transmitted to the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center (NCRIC), which feeds law enforcement intelligence to the federal government. Their use by law enforcement is rapidly expanding throughout the United States. Piedmont will retain the data for one year.

"We've erred on the side of privacy everywhere we could while still trying to keep the data long enough for the purpose of an investigation," she said, adding that the city has no plans to consult with any civil liberties or privacy groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union or the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Earlier this year, Piedmont’s police chief also told Ars that the city is increasingly concerned about burglaries, which jumped from 90 in 2011 to 135 in 2012.

“It's an investigative tool being used as a force-multiplier,” Goede told Ars in March 2013. “That's what tech is all about, helping us be more efficient and at the end of the day, keeping our communities safe. If technology can help with that, we should be for that.”

I'm apparently in the minority, but I don't understand why this is a bad thing. There is no expectation of privacy when driving a car on a public road.

The data generated could also be obtained by hiring people to collect license plates manually, the technology just makes it cheaper.

In the near future...

*Phone rings*You: Hello?Voice: Is this Mr. adamsb6?You: YesVoice: Records show you leave Piedmont every weekday via Main Street between 7:00 and 7:15 am and return between 5:00 and 5:15, but you did not yesterday. Has your pattern changed? Please notify us if you plan to change your daily routine, or else we will automatically send law enforcement to check on you. Thank you for your cooperation.

I'm apparently in the minority, but I don't understand why this is a bad thing. There is no expectation of privacy when driving a car on a public road.

The data generated could also be obtained by hiring people to collect license plates manually, the technology just makes it cheaper.

This has already been brought up in previous articles covering LPRs. It's not a problem when police are doing it manually, because the cost and manpower involved is a built-in check & balance on its use. They will only do it when actually necessary and the cost will have to be justified. However, when technology makes it practically free and they employ it 24/7, that built-in check & balance evaporates. Additionally, the massive scale of its usage creates new problems that were not possible when done manually.

In many ways, it's like the difference between your neighbor seeing you leave home once or twice a week, and an automated drone with a camera and microphone that follows you from the moment you open your front door to the moment you return home. Oh, and the video & sound is permanently saved and cross-referenced with every other monitoring system.

Edit: To clarify, I'm not saying the "drone buddy" picture is what's happening here. It's to illustrate how the scale technology makes possible can fundamentally change the issues.

181 Reader Comments

“It's an investigative tool being used as a force-multiplier,” Rikki Goede, the police chief, told Ars in March 2013. “That's what tech is all about, helping us be more efficient and at the end of the day, keeping our communities safe. If technology can help with that, we should be for that.”

Not if it erodes our privacy. Installing CCD cameras in every room of every house in town would also allow the police to be more efficient as well.

True. And why stop there? With sodomy increasing in popularity, most people shouldn't mind having a camera in there, too.

Right NOW, they are only limited as readers. But say they read you coming into the city at 11:04:34pm and leaving the city at 11:05:34 and the readers are stationed 1.5 miles apart. You just got busted doing 90mph, and I dare say they could use that to justify issuing you a speeding ticket.

I see nothing wrong with this application. You did speed after all. There is no constitutional right to hide that fact.

I know they say they won't track everyone's comings and goings, but put enough of those together and you certainly could gather enough data to figure it out should they decide to. And who decides where the data goes after it's collected? How long is it stored for? Who has access to it and under what circumstances? All that information would be awfully tempting to some people who have less than the public's best interest in mind.

Yes, these are legitimate questions. I think they should be stored forever by a judge. If police want to use the data, get a warrant.

I'm not really sure the city will benefit from these fixed LPR's... they may help them flag a stolen vehicle, but thieves can simply attach a fake tag when taking a car and it all becomes worthless.

I don't quite get this style of argument. Are you also against cameras in banks to help catch criminals? I mean, they can just wear a mask, making the camera worthless. What about dusting for fingerprings? They can just wear gloves! DNA evidence? Just a little bleach on the blood and it is worthless.

There are many ways to get around many security and law enforcement techniques, does that mean we should not use them? If it makes the life of a criminal more difficult and doesn't make the life of a normal person any more difficult what is the problem? Unless you have a warrant out or are driving a stolen car these LPRs will not impact you at all, except maybe making you safer.

So nearly three quarters of a million on an alleged "force multiplier" cause burglaries are up? I'm feeling a disconnect here. Maybe if drive by's, GTA and various other vehicle related crimes had jumped, I could see it, but this, I smell over reach by local law enforcement under the guise of "We'll protect you if you just let us."

To be fair, it's not like a ritzy neighborhood is likely to have lots of public transport options, and yeah, TVs are getting lighter, but I wouldn't like to hoof it for 5 miles with a 50 inch screen, I'd prefer to drive.

Cool, so steal a car outside of town, get your shit, get out of town, and ditch the car.

Bonus points if your able to steal the car and return it to the same spot so the owner of the car never reports it so when they pull the records it looks like they committed the burglary. Look LPR just created crime.

Maybe it's time to develop a license plate cover that can become totally opaque at the touch of a button. Most of the time you're driving along with the plate perfectly visible. Get notified you're coming up to an LPR? One touch and it's completely opaque and the LPR is useless. Leave the range of the LPR. Visible again. Unless there's a cop next to the LPR, no problems.

Because this is expressly illegal currently. What you could do behaving legally, a criminal could do when it suits them and then less criminals get caught. It's a delicate balance between liberties and being able to find the bad guys. This is one of the reasonable tradeoffs, at least in my opinion. I don't like the LPRs and would avoid them if possible, but it's their town.

I'm not really sure the city will benefit from these fixed LPR's... they may help them flag a stolen vehicle, but thieves can simply attach a fake tag when taking a car and it all becomes worthless.

I don't quite get this style of argument. Are you also against cameras in banks to help catch criminals? I mean, they can just wear a mask, making the camera worthless. What about dusting for fingerprings? They can just wear gloves! DNA evidence? Just a little bleach on the blood and it is worthless.

There are many ways to get around many security and law enforcement techniques, does that mean we should not use them? If it makes the life of a criminal more difficult and doesn't make the life of a normal person any more difficult what is the problem? Unless you have a warrant out or are driving a stolen car these LPRs will not impact you at all, except maybe making you safer.

The difference is out in public vs choosing to enter a bank and do business with them. I can opt out of that surveillance, I can't opt out of the public cameras should be they put everywhere. I will however never set foot in this town Of course I'm the east coast so it's easy for me to do that!

Right NOW, they are only limited as readers. But say they read you coming into the city at 11:04:34pm and leaving the city at 11:05:34 and the readers are stationed 1.5 miles apart. You just got busted doing 90mph, and I dare say they could use that to justify issuing you a speeding ticket.

My friends and I realized that they could already do this with Tolls and that was back before they had easy pass/fast lane and you just got tickets (MA PIKE) when you got on and off. If they wanted to use "check points" to issue speeding tickets they don't need LPR

I'm not really sure the city will benefit from these fixed LPR's... they may help them flag a stolen vehicle, but thieves can simply attach a fake tag when taking a car and it all becomes worthless.

I don't quite get this style of argument. Are you also against cameras in banks to help catch criminals? I mean, they can just wear a mask, making the camera worthless. What about dusting for fingerprings? They can just wear gloves! DNA evidence? Just a little bleach on the blood and it is worthless.

There are many ways to get around many security and law enforcement techniques, does that mean we should not use them? If it makes the life of a criminal more difficult and doesn't make the life of a normal person any more difficult what is the problem? Unless you have a warrant out or are driving a stolen car these LPRs will not impact you at all, except maybe making you safer.

The difference is out in public vs choosing to enter a bank and do business with them. I can opt out of that surveillance, I can't opt out of the public cameras should be they put everywhere. I will however never set foot in this town Of course I'm the east coast so it's easy for me to do that!

So are you saying that we shouldn't strive to make it more difficult for criminals? These cameras have no effect on law abiding people.

I'm apparently in the minority, but I don't understand why this is a bad thing. There is no expectation of privacy when driving a car on a public road.

The data generated could also be obtained by hiring people to collect license plates manually, the technology just makes it cheaper.

Indeed. It would be far easier if we just put a monitoring bracelet on your leg 24/7. It's one thing to be in a public space, it's another entirely to have your every move in public recorded for posterity. Maybe the IRS would love to know that you've not been going to the casinos like you claimed and your newly found money is therefore suspect in origin.

Whether something 'can' be done is far different than whether it 'should' be done.

I'm apparently in the minority, but I don't understand why this is a bad thing. There is no expectation of privacy when driving a car on a public road.

The data generated could also be obtained by hiring people to collect license plates manually, the technology just makes it cheaper.

So you're cool with the fuzz knowing where you're going and where you've been at all times?

And yes, it *could* be collected by people manually, but that would be exorbitantly expensive and wouldn't be performed arbitrarily (unless insanity is a factor).

I'm perfectly fine with the fuzz knowing where my car is at all times yes. Until they force the install of RFID (or future tech) implanted devices on everyone they will not be able to know where everyone is. Besides doesn't the automated part just check against stolen cars / known warrants. So yes they may have the info saying my car was at place X at Y time but unless there is a reason to go back and look at them then I really doubt they would since that requires them to want to know where I was which typically means that I am being investigated for some other crime. I'm fine with the above because I don't plan on committing crimes. (I also live no where near here)

Uh, you're cell phone already tracks you 24/7 and they're trying to get that data now without warrants. Did you read the story about how the feds were using GPS trackers on people who weren't even CHARGED with crimes? Just people they deemed suspicious. It's a slippery slope and we're already sliding.

I'm apparently in the minority, but I don't understand why this is a bad thing. There is no expectation of privacy when driving a car on a public road.

The data generated could also be obtained by hiring people to collect license plates manually, the technology just makes it cheaper.

Indeed. It would be far easier if we just put a monitoring bracelet on your leg 24/7. It's one thing to be in a public space, it's another entirely to have your every move in public recorded for posterity. Maybe the IRS would love to know that you've not been going to the casinos like you claimed and your newly found money is therefore suspect in origin.

Whether something 'can' be done is far different than whether it 'should' be done.

Your statement seems to contradict itself, unless I am misunderstanding. You seem to be against these cameras, which only record plates to check for warrants or if the car is stolen while you are in public, but then go on to seem to say it is okay to be monitored in public.

Funny how a country that was founded on the principal of liberty can give up so much of that liberty for a little safety.

The following comes to mind: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Someone else posted this. What liberty are people giving up, exactly? There is no right to privacy while you are in public. No one is being stopped unjustly. No one is being deprived of anything. Please, enlighten me.

Someone else posted this. What liberty are people giving up, exactly? There is no right to privacy while you are in public. No one is being stopped unjustly. No one is being deprived of anything. Please, enlighten me.

Someone else posted this. What liberty are people giving up, exactly? There is no right to privacy while you are in public. No one is being stopped unjustly. No one is being deprived of anything. Please, enlighten me.

Define "unjustly"

Without cause. In this example, it is being used for cars reported stolen and cars registered to people who warrants out on them. I would say stopping those people is okay. Pretty straight forward, really.

The story mentions Sugar Land, TX. They have LPRs on a lot (but not all) of their patrol cars, but i'm not aware of them having them at any borders. and there are a LOT of roads in and out of Sugar Land and surrounding areas, including a major freeway (US 59) which has like 6 or 7 lanes in each direction, plus an HOV, and some minor highways (such as US 90, SH 6 and the grand parkway) with 2-4 lanes in each direction. They also like red light cameras. they're all over the place, esp on hwy 6.

I have a problem with the government harvesting data from all of those other sources as well (unless it's for beneficial purposes like the 911 system, and data isn't retained forever and ever). Just because data tracking happens elsewhere in our lives doesn't make it automatically good anywhere it crops up.

It doesn't make it automatically bad either. We're talking about one city that has decided this is how they want live. How is that not their right? If my city (or the fed) decided to do that, I'd want more info about things like data retention and accessibility as well. But I don't live in Piedmont. I didn't vote these folks in to make decisions for me. I'll patiently sit back, let them live their lives and learn from the results of their decisions.

The problem for non-residents of Piedmont or any other city is by definition they do not have say about in any of the policies. The concern is ultimately is about what Piedmont could do with the data in the future and how that might affect non-residents. There are many questions about the program that are not answered nor do I think Piedmont has fully thought through the implications. Such as do they retain any data after checking the databases and if so how long and who has access to the data and for what purposes can the data be used for. Who can make policy revisions is an important question.

There is a sense from the article that this was a knee-jerk reaction to a local problem with many unverified assumptions made. The knee-jerk reaction often does include careful analysis of the problem nor of alternate solutions. Poor policy implementation allows for the potential of serious abuse. Actually the residents of Piedmont may hurt more longterm if the data is misused.

I'm apparently in the minority, but I don't understand why this is a bad thing. There is no expectation of privacy when driving a car on a public road.

The data generated could also be obtained by hiring people to collect license plates manually, the technology just makes it cheaper.

So you're cool with the fuzz knowing where you're going and where you've been at all times?

And yes, it *could* be collected by people manually, but that would be exorbitantly expensive and wouldn't be performed arbitrarily (unless insanity is a factor).

I'm perfectly fine with the fuzz knowing where my car is at all times yes. Until they force the install of RFID (or future tech) implanted devices on everyone they will not be able to know where everyone is. Besides doesn't the automated part just check against stolen cars / known warrants. So yes they may have the info saying my car was at place X at Y time but unless there is a reason to go back and look at them then I really doubt they would since that requires them to want to know where I was which typically means that I am being investigated for some other crime. I'm fine with the above because I don't plan on committing crimes. (I also live no where near here)

Uh, you're cell phone already tracks you 24/7 and they're trying to get that data now without warrants. Did you read the story about how the feds were using GPS trackers on people who weren't even CHARGED with crimes? Just people they deemed suspicious. It's a slippery slope and we're already sliding.

Let me know when they can get the cell data without warrants then I will care. And I did not read the story about the GPS trackers for people not charged care to link it? Also did the police have warrants to use the GPS trackers? If they had warrants seems like the system is working already since a judge had to go and approve it. If they had no warrants then I would say it is police misconduct and should be treated as such.

People can complain and moan all they want about corruption and misuse of data but at some point you have to realize that there is a higher authority than yourself if you live in a society with other people. The higher authority in getting warrants would be the judge.

I do agree with another poster (forget who) that the stored data should be removed from the police control and require a warrant just like any other security footage type data.

People keep quoting the Benjamin Franklin quote about giving up liberty for safety but I don't see why since privacy in public is not a right or liberty.

Part of the reason is the Great Recession, but part of it is what economists call Baumol's cost disease. That many governmental service that's labor intensive will have cost increase faster than general inflation, it's either increase revenue or reduce headcount.

Let me know when they can get the cell data without warrants then I will care. And I did not read the story about the GPS trackers for people not charged care to link it? Also did the police have warrants to use the GPS trackers? If they had warrants seems like the system is working already since a judge had to go and approve it. If they had no warrants then I would say it is police misconduct and should be treated as such.

You don't need GPS. Triangulate your position with the towers. Not as exact obviously, but in some areas you your position can be determined down to 50m or so.

Let me know when they can get the cell data without warrants then I will care. And I did not read the story about the GPS trackers for people not charged care to link it? Also did the police have warrants to use the GPS trackers? If they had warrants seems like the system is working already since a judge had to go and approve it. If they had no warrants then I would say it is police misconduct and should be treated as such.

You don't need GPS. Triangulate your position with the towers. Not as exact obviously, but in some areas you your position can be determined down to 50m or so.

Yes but if you read what I was responding to pixelpusher220

Quote:

Did you read the story about how the feds were using GPS trackers on people who weren't even CHARGED with crimes?

And AFAIK they still require warrants to get cell tower info in order to triangulate the position

This has nothing to do with crime (as most stolen goods in the back of a van can not be identified as such by a license plate reader) and everything to do with cops chasing down and harassing anyone who doesn't "belong" in the city.

How in the world is an LPR going to tell the police who is a "minority?" Do different ethnic groups get assigned different license plates?

More OT, I live in a neighborhood with roughly-comparable demographics, and we've had a surge of petty crime in the past 2-3 years. There's been some petty theft from cars, some vandalism, and two cars stolen. I have been one of the few members of the HOA campaigning for a camera.

I don't have any fear of this turning into a government surveillance program because we are doing this ourselves. We have 270 homeowners, and this would be put to a vote. And we would have direct control over the video and data, to be turned over to law enforcement when we ask them to get involved, or in response to a legal request.

Piedmont is quite a bit larger, but 10,000 residents is still small enough to have reasonably direct democracy.

There's a big difference between voting to patrol your own borders and having corrupt, disconnected senators in Washington voting to do it to you.

edit: I should note that we've observed the perps' cars' fleeing the premises a few times, but we weren't close enough to make out faces or plates. The same car has appeared more than once. Given the size of our neighborhood, we're 99.9999999% sure this crime is coming from outside our neighborhood.

Right NOW, they are only limited as readers. But say they read you coming into the city at 11:04:34pm and leaving the city at 11:05:34 and the readers are stationed 1.5 miles apart. You just got busted doing 90mph, and I dare say they could use that to justify issuing you a speeding ticket.

I see nothing wrong with this application. You did speed after all. There is no constitutional right to hide that fact.

The only problem with this scenario, is they don't have a picture of the driver. Most states define the violator of a moving violation, as the person operating the vehicle, not the registered owner. They'd need to prove you were driving the car.

So if they are going to have to pull you over to do that, they wouldn't have needed the LPR, becuase if you are going 90, you'd be easy to spot.

If they had a camera on the thing, they wouldn't need LPR either, just LIDAR/RADAR.

union labor to install them isn't cheap. that cost also probably includes infrastructure (data, power) to/from each site (which is probably the bulk of the cost), plus backend (servers), maintenance and operating costs.

Another issue with using LPR to try to catch criminals, is that a lot of criminals use temp tags. If you have temp tags on the car, they won't be read by the LPR, as you wouln't have any plates to read.

Right NOW, they are only limited as readers. But say they read you coming into the city at 11:04:34pm and leaving the city at 11:05:34 and the readers are stationed 1.5 miles apart. You just got busted doing 90mph, and I dare say they could use that to justify issuing you a speeding ticket.

I see nothing wrong with this application. You did speed after all. There is no constitutional right to hide that fact.

The only problem with this scenario, is they don't have a picture of the driver. Most states define the violator of a moving violation, as the person operating the vehicle, not the registered owner. They'd need to prove you were driving the car.

So if they are going to have to pull you over to do that, they wouldn't have needed the LPR, becuase if you are going 90, you'd be easy to spot.

If they had a camera on the thing, they wouldn't need LPR either, just LIDAR/RADAR.

I thought red light cam tickets were sent to the owner of the car who then had to prove they weren't driving at the time. I realize that red light cam pictures normally show who is driving so it is different but there is currently nothing that just sends speeding tickets so that is the next closest thing.

I thought red light cam tickets were sent to the owner of the car who then had to prove they weren't driving at the time. I realize that red light cam pictures normally show who is driving so it is different but there is currently nothing that just sends speeding tickets so that is the next closest thing.

i've seen some friends' red light camera tickets (from sugar land) and you can't see inside the car. sure, you can tell it's the right car because it's a decent photo and the plate is legible, but the angle is too high to see inside - and it's from behind. same for (harris county) toll booth violation photos - pic is of the back of the car, and is too high to see inside.

and they've had speed cameras in the UK and other places for ages now. Top Gear UK even did an episode about trying to beat a speed camera. apparently you have to be moving at almost 200 MPH (yes, miles/hr, not KM/H) to have it not take your picture.

I am cool with it. I don't expect privacy when I'm in public and I don't do things that are against the law. Like the other poster said, just because technology is being used doesn't make it worse.

You're right, it doesn't make it worse. Agencies collecting mass-surveillance data have a much older name. States instituting them have horrifying track records. Arguments in support of instituting them silently deny the potential for corruption, and its devastating effects. History says those arguments are based on blinkered ignorance. The phrase you're oh-so-assiduously not looking for is "secret police". The practice always begins well.

I am cool with it. I don't expect privacy when I'm in public and I don't do things that are against the law. Like the other poster said, just because technology is being used doesn't make it worse.

You're right, it doesn't make it worse. Agencies collecting mass-surveillance data have a much older name. States instituting them have horrifying track records. Arguments in support of instituting them silently deny the potential for corruption, and its devastating effects. History says those arguments are based on blinkered ignorance. The phrase you're oh-so-assiduously not looking for is "secret police". The practice always begins well.

I like how you jump straight from cameras that do nothing but look for stolen cars or people who have warrants out for their arrest to secret police. History says those arguments are based on crazy conspiracy theories and tin-foil hats. I haven't noticed much "secret policing" in the UK, where cameras have in public places have been the norm for a while now, have you?

union labor to install them isn't cheap. that cost also probably includes infrastructure (data, power) to/from each site (which is probably the bulk of the cost), plus backend (servers), maintenance and operating costs.

I agree of course, except for the maintenance and operating costs. I am sure those are not part of that price tag.

Part of the reason is the Great Recession, but part of it is what economists call Baumol's cost disease. That many governmental service that's labor intensive will have cost increase faster than general inflation, it's either increase revenue or reduce headcount.

Since revenue is limited in California by Prop. 13, technologies like this are needed to bring cost/productivity back into balance.

Fair points all around, my primary point was that no one wants to be seen as pushing cops off the street, so the unions have nothing to fear from some mayor going out and replacing them with robots and using it to publicly justify getting rid of half the force.

The way i see it, these people feel very insecure or not safe with the government . In other words they want to be more safe from the government, so they give up more of their freedom from criminals and corporations . Being said that, know i realize how brilliant is that quote from Benjamin

$600k just to keep gang bangers out of town? Sounds like a screaming deal for California. Better than putting up a sign that says "Wealthy folks only" (you know what I'm getting at). This isn't an enforcement multiplier, it's a non resident harrassment tool for the NIMBYs, plain and simple.

Right NOW, they are only limited as readers. But say they read you coming into the city at 11:04:34pm and leaving the city at 11:05:34 and the readers are stationed 1.5 miles apart. You just got busted doing 90mph, and I dare say they could use that to justify issuing you a speeding ticket.

Meanwhile, San Diego turned off all its red light cams as they cost more to maintain and keep a force of officers to monitor than the revenue they brought in. Additionally, the police chief stated that the officers that were going over the pics could be better put to use out on the streets (assuming he wasn't referring to any on disability/desk duty).